Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

What is this crap?

"Each person applying for a Permit to Carry a Handgun must supply a letter of need, specific in content, as to why they have a need to carry a firearm in the State of New Jersey"

 

Do we just put "All Legal Purposes" onto a blank sheet of paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

 I think some due credit needs to go to former  President Trump as well. His many conservative appointments to SCOTUS and other Federal courts, as it turns out, are really providing a bulwark against the encroaching attacks on Constitutional rights that we've been seeing as of late.   

Yep.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gleninjersey said:

List of ranges to for qualifying score that you'll need to provide when applying for NJ Conceal Carry License.

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/shooting-ranges.shtml

I guess it's time to start looking at the 'Conceal Carry" section on the forum.   :)

soo...these ranges are accessible to non-leo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this is the decision, what's the difference between this and what the 2nd and 14th guarantee and Consitutonal Carrry......this grants law abiding citizens in all 50 states to CC outside the home and in public, also negates the "need"........so apps., permits and qual tests are out the window...........omo.

  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

What is this crap?

"Each person applying for a Permit to Carry a Handgun must supply a letter of need, specific in content, as to why they have a need to carry a firearm in the State of New Jersey"

 

Do we just put "All Legal Purposes" onto a blank sheet of paper?

I would put down:

For all lawful purposes as per decision - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, Docket 20-843

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

thanks. so three endorsements. leads me to a question. one person i may use, i've known since 1979. he had a felony charge for beating the snot outta a couple police officers that bumrushed his house in 1977. nothing since then. bad idea to use him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

What I can't tell is if we got strict scrutiny or some new tier of scrutiny they re trying to make happen. It very clearly states strict scrutiny is a no-no. 

 

I take it that the state, or at least the attorney general, will need to be sued to address the strict scrutiny that will likely happen, correct?

 

That will probably take more time, but today is still a huge win.  It's nice to hear good news!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, father-of-three said:

I take it that the state, or at least the attorney general, will need to be sued to address the strict scrutiny that will likely happen, correct?

 

That will probably take more time, but today is still a huge win.  It's nice to hear good news!

Well it shuts down intermediate scrutiny hard. It says there is no balancing test of states interests. It either conforms to the 2nd amendment or not, and the argument is about what the second amendment covers. 

It will certainly take more time, but the question is how much. There are a bunch of other held cases they will likely remand, but I don't have them committed to memory and am still reading the ruling. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, xXxplosive said:

again, if their decision stands, IMO, it negates apps., permits and qual. tests. under the 2nd AND 14TH.

Unfortunately the decision states that apps, permits, and qual are still allowed. They state that may-issue is unconstitutional and shall-issue must be the law of the land.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

Unfortunately the decision states that apps, permits, and qual are still allowed. They state that may-issue is unconstitutional and shall-issue must be the law of the land.

Qualification for CCW---one shot with snub nose 38 to hit target at 250 yards...GO!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

again, if their decision stands, IMO, it negates apps., permits and qual. tests. under the 2nd AND 14TH.

I mean the decision literally says that permitting is permitted and uniform, objective standards are not necessarily infringing nor are they guaranteed to not be infringing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

What is this crap?

"Each person applying for a Permit to Carry a Handgun must supply a letter of need, specific in content, as to why they have a need to carry a firearm in the State of New Jersey"

 

Do we just put "All Legal Purposes" onto a blank sheet of paper?

I'm attaching the SCOTUS decision.  :icon_lol:

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

What is this crap?

"Each person applying for a Permit to Carry a Handgun must supply a letter of need, specific in content, as to why they have a need to carry a firearm in the State of New Jersey"

 

Do we just put "All Legal Purposes" onto a blank sheet of paper?

I know it's hard to believe, but NJ was not chomping at the bit to update their forms and procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CMJeepster said:

NY deserves not 1 but 6 middle fingers

 

Ok, so what is the best CC holster for a VP9? For a fat guy.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

i'll probably carry my beretta. i carry my sr9c at work, but i can't get a full comfortable grip on it when drawing.

I've got a Ruger SP101 4.1" in 357 that I am quite fond of, but I thought that it was way too long for CC. Then I found a holster company (I don't think it's appropriate to be boosting specific vendors here, if anyone wants the contact info, msg me) in Europe that customizes IWB and OWB leather holsters. They made me an IWB holster for my revolver from some very nice stuff, and I'm quite happy with it, although it turns out that I actually prefer to cross-draw from it than same-side. Price was reasonable, also. I might get to use it in NJ. hooray!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cue the usual wailing, but Supreme Court gun ruling won’t unleash new wave of violence (yahoo.com)

"Our gun violence problems are driven by many factors — including, yes, the prevalence of guns. It’s not the biggest cause, though. That would be young men (and some not-so-young ones, too) who have not learned impulse control or how to handle their disputes and disappointments without resorting to violence.

They violate a plethora of gun laws, ones that should be fully and vigorously enforced before we try broad new restrictions. You just don’t see a lot of gang members and hotheads taking the time and effort to apply for a license-to-carry."

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...